Canadian Mennonite
Volume 13, No. 20
Oct. 19, 2009
How We Got Here From There: Part II
Belonging to the wider church
 |
It was five years ago in July—at the 2004 assembly in Winkler, Man.—that Mennonite Church Canada agreed to seek membership in the Canadian Council of Churches (CCC) and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC). To examine and celebrate the past, present and future of these ecumenical relationships, Canadian Mennonite managing editor Ross W. Muir interviews general secretary Robert J. Suderman and representatives of the EFC and CCC.
CM: When MC Canada delegates decided to seek membership in the Canadian Council of Churches and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the motion was to join both or neither. Why was that?
Suderman: MC Canada had always understood that one very significant element of ecumenical involvement and collaboration was bridge-building, rather than fragmentation. Often this is talked about as “unity” or “unifying the body of Christ.” This concern to bring things together, rather than keep things apart, was at the heart of our desire to join both or none.
Unfortunately, in Canada, “ecumenical” initiatives are still characterized by division—i.e. CCC and EFC. By joining only one, our ecumenical world would still be fragmented, and, potentially, the internal MC Canada world would be stressed, given that there were some among us who favoured one organization over the other. By agreeing beforehand that we would join both or none, we spoke both to the bridge-building witness we wished to have beyond our denomination and to the concern for consensus within our denomination.
CM: What did MC Canada hope to get out of membership in these two national church organizations at that time? Conversely, what did it hope to offer in return?
Suderman: MC Canada understood that it has things to learn from and to share with the broader ecclesial world. We hoped to be able to do both.
Inter-Christian collaboration is one of those powerful tools of testimony we have for the broader world that extends the credibility of our understanding of the gospel of Christ. Fragmentation and inter-Christian non-collaboration are targets of jest and ridicule that generate non-confidence in our message of peace, reconciliation, forgiveness and unity.
Collaboration in ministry and partnership in witness, along with the symbolic signals of unity in Christ, were some of the things we hoped to foster by joining both of these organizations. In these ways we both give and get from this partnership.
CM: When MC Canada joined the EFC and CCC, it attached some conditions. What were they and why were they deemed necessary?
Suderman: I don’t have this information in front of me, so I’m not sure what the conditions are that you are referring to. The only one I remember is that there was reluctance to join either group by basing our membership on its statement of faith when it was felt that we should function according to ours.
I understand that a request was made to base our membership on our commitment to our Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, and that this was acceptable to both. Also, by doing it this way, then our membership commitment, in terms of confession, would be congruent in both cases.
I am not aware of other “conditions,” but I was not intimately involved in the conversations at that time.
CM: How would you characterize the past five years as members of both these organizations? How have MC Canada’s theological positions and beliefs complemented and, conversely, challenged the CCC and EFC and their other denominational members?
Suderman: Our participation has been very positively welcomed and received by the other member bodies in these organizations.
One very significant step that has happened is that those six church bodies that have dual membership (both CCC and EFC) have indeed already functioned as a bridge to help those two groups have more regular and deeper connections with each other. Every year now, those six church bodies meet for a whole day with the executives and presidents of the CCC and EFC to share about what it means to be members of both, how we can co-operate more fully, and how this can indeed foster greater ecumenical harmony and cooperation. And this small group receives substantial attention now on the agendas of both the organizations, to the point where some other church bodies are considering following our model.
On the CCC, we have been requested to help it think through the implications of being a Peace Church, and what that may mean for the CCC and its membership. We have had two significant and lengthy discussions about this, responding to a paper I have written that addresses these concerns.
A product of that has been a request from the Christian Reformed Church of America to engage us in a day-long symposium about our mutual perspectives on war and peace, violence and nonviolence. (The symposium was planned for Oct. 17 in Winnipeg.)
We have also been invited to share a day of reflection with the United Church of Canada around the topic of R2P (the Responsibility to Protect doctrine), a topic that has gained considerable traction and formal approval in the United Church, in the United Nations and in the World Council of Churches. More recently, two of our people have been invited to another initiative by the United Church to share perspectives of peace and pacifism with them.
 |
We also participate with representation on the Faith and Witness Commission of the CCC, as well as on its communications team. We are heavily involved in helping to organize a global inter-religious leaders gathering that meets simultaneously with the G8 nations leadership gathering. This religious leaders event will be in Winnipeg in May 2010.
We have not had the same level of interaction, conversation and involvement with the EFC. From them, however, we have gained substantial help from its research department, and they have helped us get some data that helps us understand the finances of the MC Canada system.
In a sense, the EFC involvement, thus far, is more of an involvement in which they attempt to resource us, rather than participation on its boards and committees. In such encounters, our objectives to both learn and share are addressed. It is a very rich experience to do so.
CM: At any time have individual Mennonite congregants, congregations or area churches expressed concerns or consternation over membership in these two groups, or decisions or pronouncements made by either the CCC or EFC? If so, what were they and how did MC Canada work through these concerns?
Suderman: I am not aware that there have been any significant concerns expressed by our constituency about our membership in these two organizations.
Perhaps one small caveat to that does need to be mentioned. I think some unease has been felt and expressed about the manner in which the EFC speaks on behalf of its membership (in political advocacy and media pronouncements).
Perhaps the best way to explain this is to point to how it differs from the way the CCC speaks on behalf of its members. The CCC does not send a letter of advocacy on its letterhead unless it has received 22 out of 22 signatures of its member churches. We feel positive about that.
The EFC, on the other hand, postulates from the general ethos of “Evangelicals” what the advocacy should be and speaks without checking whether its members are in full agreement. This has generated some levels of dis-ease at times within our constituents.
CM: After five years, does MC Canada see any need to revisit membership in these organizations with assembly delegates?
Suderman: No, we do not feel any need to revisit the fundamental decision made about membership.
In the 2008 MC Canada assembly, both of these organizations were given time on the delegate floor to greet the delegates and provide relevant comments and information. Both Paul Johnson (vice-president of the CCC) and Bruce Clemenger (CEO of the EFC) were very warmly received by our delegates, and much appreciation was expressed.
A point that needs to be raised, however, is the question of the cost of membership. We do need to discover a better way to contribute our fair share of membership costs than what we do presently.
Related to this is the inevitable discussion about “how much is it worth to us” in terms of budget dollars. Would it be fair to request membership fees from our congregations to cover the costs of membership in the three organizations that MC Canada is a member of (CCC, EFC and Mennonite World Conference [MWC])? I think the cost of membership in good organizations such as these needs further debate and discussion.
CM: How much is membership in these organizations, and what are their fees based on?
Suderman: There are not set fees, but there are expectations. The CCC would like to see a denomination our size pay about $12,000 to $15,000. The EFC has a suggested membership fee of 20 cents per member, which, in our case, would work out to about $6,600 or so.
In terms of MWC, they work on a “fair-share formula,” which is based on the gross national income of the country of the member church, the membership size of the member church and the core budget of MWC. In our case, “fair share” works out to about $90,000 to $100,000 per year.
CM: So what is MC Canada actually contributing to these organizations annually? In any of the years it has been a member, has it met their expectations?
Suderman: One part of the question is more difficult to answer than the other.
Our contribution to each of CCC and EFC has been about $3,500 per year since we joined.
The MWC part is more difficult to answer. We have contributed $38,000 via our central budget, but congregations and area churches have also been contributing, and their contributions are also included in the “fair share” amount coming out of MC Canada. I don’t have the exact figures on that, but we have been striving corporately to meet our “fair share.” In a conference year like this one, in Paraguay, I think we likely meet the amount all together. In other years, we have not.
CM: What does the future hold for MC Canada as members of the CCC and EFC?
Suderman: The Mennonite presence in these organizations is a highly coveted commodity by the ecumenical church table. Without a doubt, we represent a strong and highly respected voice in areas that are often largely—not entirely—silent. As such, our membership is highly valued.
I think increasingly it is also highly valued by our own constituents. Ecumenical involvement does not mean giving up what we believe. Rather, the ecumenical movement is strongest when the legiti-mate and compelling biblical perspectives are present in debate and in ministry with each other, and all this within genuine relationship.
The Mennonite contribution to these organizations is rapidly increasing. And our learning from these brothers and sisters is also increasing. We trust that we can find good ways to continue to nurture and foster our involvements in these ways.
How others see us
Canadian Mennonite also questioned Linda Milke, director of ministry advancement with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and Rev. Karen Hamilton, general secretary of the Canadian Council of Churches, about the process Mennonite Church Canada went through to join their organizations and our denomination’s contributions to them over the past five years.
CM: When MC Canada delegates decided to seek membership in the CCC and EFC, what was the process your organization went through in considering the application?
Milke: The application was reviewed by the EFC president, who has been given authority by the EFC board to approve affiliation applications unless he has any reason to question the application, in which case he would seek wisdom and guidance by the board.
The EFC requires three things before an application can be considered: signed agreement with the EFC’s statement of faith, Canadian Revenue Agency charitable status, and an annual fee. In the case of MC Canada, there was not an issue.
Hamilton: Mennonite Church Canada was an observer at the CCC governing board table for a number of years, participating, through its general secretary, at governing board meetings and at other opportunities of council work and witness. After a number of years like that, the CCC went through the formal, constitutional process normally followed for the admittance of any denomination to membership.
CM: What types of questions do applicants get asked?
Hamilton: It is not so much a process of asking questions, but of exploring together the particular witness to the unity in diversity of God’s vision that is the ecumenical reality of the CCC.
Milke: An application is attached. Unless there are questions that cause concern, the approval process is based on the application.
CM: In both applications, MC Canada included a copy of the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective as a framework for its participation in your organization. Is this a normal part of the process?
Milke: No, but we appreciated receiving it and considered it carefully.
Hamilton: Since member denominations of the CCC self-define and self-present, the copy of the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective would not be a normal thing to present in an application for membership, but neither would it not be normal.
The key to membership in the CCC is an affirmation of Trinitarian theology, something that Mennonite Church Canada would, of course, easily proclaim. Some denominations have such kinds of documents as the Confession and some do not. Denominations present who they are according to their own criteria.
CM: MC Canada had observer status in your organizations before formal membership in 2004. What did that involve?
Milke: Observer status [in EFC] simply requires a request from the organization. Though we value this relationship, it is seen as a service to our observers rather than a closely held relationship.
CM: Over the past five years, how has MC Canada fit into your organization? What has it brought to the table?
Hamilton: In the past five years, Mennonite Church Canada has been an active participant in the work and witness of the CCC, contributing to discussions and actions on such subjects as Afghanistan, health care, suffering and hope, and, of course, peace.
Milke: Jack Suderman has been present at annual Presidents Day events, and at the Denominational Leaders Gathering, which takes place the day following. Both events feature opportunity for networking and dialogue with peers.
CM: Have there been topics—like MC Canada’s peace position—that have challenged your organization or its other members?
Milke: We have not had specific topics like MC Canada’s peace position as a theme for Presidents Day or Denominational Leaders Gathering events. However, Jack Suderman has had opportunity to speak out of MC Canada’s unique theological background, including its peace position, on different occasions.
Hamilton: The current general secretary of MC Canada gave a major presentation on peace to the CCC governing board, a presentation that engendered much challenged and challenging conversation. The conversation was considered to be so significant to the board that it was continued at the next meeting with presentations from a number of other CCC denominations.
Currently, discussions are underway in terms of bringing that Mennonite perspective to the 2010 Assembly of the National Churches of Christ in the United States.
CM: Conversely, how has MC Canada complemented the other denominations in your organization? And how have your organizations and other member denominations been able to complement/challenge MC Canada?
Hamilton: Of substantive note is the fact that Mennonite Church Canada is one of six member denominations of the CCC that also belong to the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. With 22 member denominations, this means that almost one-third of the council’s member denomi-nations live out this dual membership and contribute to the broadness of the CCC.
Milke: One of the purposes of the EFC is to provide a forum in which an open exchange of ideas can take place. Having an MC Canada representative participate in these forums provides opportunity for MC Canada’s positions to be considered by other denominational leaders and for MC Canada’s representative to consider, in turn, the positions represented by his peers.
Specific ministry partnerships have not been developed on the basis of these conversations, but having a fuller representation of the spectrum of Christianity in these forums is of benefit to all who participate. Open and frank dialogue may indeed lead to ministry partnerships in future.
CM: What future roles do you see MC Canada playing in your organization?
Milke: MC Canada commissioned research on the part of the EFC’s Centre for Research on Canadian Evangelicalism, which may well benefit, albeit indirectly, other denominations that are affiliated with the EFC.
At this point, the EFC has not taken a stand on military issues because a consensus on such matters has not yet been developed within Evangelicalism in Canada. However, if and when the EFC determines that it wishes to comment on Canadian military activity, it would approach MC Canada representatives for input into a consultative process with its affiliates.
Hamilton: The future is in God’s hands, but it is more than likely that Mennonite Church Canada will continue its distinctive role and voice in the CCC, which is the broadest and most inclusive church council in the world, continuing to interact with the other denominations from the Anglican, Protestant, Roman Catholic, Evangelical, and Eastern and Oriental traditions.